similar to: [LLVMdev] interest in support for Transactional Memory?

Hi Torvald, > I would like to know whether the community is interested in getting support > for Transactional Memory (TM) merged in upstream LLVM. I guess not :( TM basically gives you > transaction properties (eg, virtually atomic + isolated execution) for > ordinary program code. Thus, to make incrementing a counter thread-safe, you > could say __transaction { counter++; } and

On Tuesday 26 October 2010 14:33:02 Duncan Sands wrote: > > transaction properties (eg, virtually atomic + isolated execution) for > > ordinary program code. Thus, to make incrementing a counter thread-safe, > > you could say __transaction { counter++; } and the compiler would > > transform this code so that it uses a TM library, which in turn does > > concurrency

Hi Torvald, On Oct 27, 2010, at 8:01, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Tuesday 26 October 2010 14:33:02 Duncan Sands wrote: >>> transaction properties (eg, virtually atomic + isolated execution) for >>> ordinary program code. Thus, to make incrementing a counter thread-safe, >>> you could say __transaction { counter++; } and the compiler would >>> transform this

I would like to announce the availability of compiler support for generation of transactional code in LLVM IR. Our tool is called Tanger and it is an LLVM pass. You can download Tanger at: http://tinystm.org Transactional memory (TM) is viewed by a lot of people to be an important tool for enabling parallelism in a wide area of applications, and especially for developers that are not skilled

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > It sounds like you're doing something STM like, have you contacted > Torvald to see if he has ideas or insight? > http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-02-23-TRANSACT-TangerObjBased.html Yeah, this is TM-like with the begin/end/abort+rollback. Thanks for the pointer, but it seems like Tanger's

Torvald, This is nice work. Do you have a set of applications or benchmarks that you have transactionalized at the source level? If so, have you reported performance numbers for them somewhere? Thanks, --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.org On Aug 19, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > I would like to announce the availability of compiler support for >

On Tuesday 22 April 2008, Chris Lattner wrote: > [llvmir] "Software Transactional Memory (STM) support in LLVM" by > Luis Felipe Strano Hi, I'd like to know more about the directions for the STM project. Somewhat contrary to what the project's abstract states, there are open C/C++ based implementations for compiler support for memory transactions. Besides some

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > No. The reason we don't allow this is because it violates the CFG. So if I *don't* violate the CFG, would I still need to do something close to "big and nasty"? ; save the address of %otherPath to use later call @llvm.checkpoint(label %otherPath) ; trick the rest of the compiler to

On Apr 19, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Edward Lee wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > wrote: >> No. The reason we don't allow this is because it violates the CFG. > So if I *don't* violate the CFG, would I still need to do something > close to "big and nasty"? It sounds like you're doing something STM like, have

Hi Vikram, I want to use poolalloc as a means for partitioning memory in Software Transactional Memory. We will have a paper about tuning parameters in word-based STMs in PPoPP 08, but there we use one configuration for the complete TM, which obviously has limitations in heterogenous workloads. Partitioning with poolalloc should give me (1) hopefully meaningful partitions (ie,

I'm happy to say that LLVM has 6 projects approved for Google SoC this year (3x more than last year!): [vmkit] "Generics support for N3" by Tilmann Schelle [clang] "Adding support for C++ classes in clang" by Argiris Kirtzidis [codegen] "PSP (Playstation Portable) support into LLVM Mips backend" by Bruno Cardoso Lopes [llvmir]

So there are a couple parts to this question. I am trying to implement the rpart/random forest algorithms on a transaction lists. That is to say i am trying to train models in order to deduce what are the most predictive transactions within a customers history in order apply this model to future test data and identify accounting irregularities(ie. this account had x and y so they should have also

Good morning, I've searched high and low and I've tried many different ways of doing this, but I can't seem to get it to work. I'm looking for a way of vectorising a "running balance"; i.e. the value in the first row of the dataframe is zero, and following rows add to this running balance. This is easy to write in a loop, but I can't seem to get it working in

caching_thread()s do all their work under read access to extent_commit_sem. They give up on this read access only when need_resched() tells them, or when they exit. As a result, somebody that wants a WRITE access to this sem, might wait for a long time. Especially this is problematic in cache_block_group(), which can be called on critical paths like find_free_extent() and in commit path via

Hello, I''m thinking about a setup that looks like this: - 2 headnodes with FC connectivity (OpenSolaris) - 2 backend FC srtorages (Disk Shelves with RAID Controllers presenting a huge 15 TB RAID5) - 2 datacenters (distance 1 km with dark fibre) - one headnode and one storage in each data center (Sorry for this ascii art :) ( Data Center 1) <--1km--> (Data

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 24-07-19 12:28:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Looks good: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> > > > > > > One comment on a related cleanup: > > > > > >

Hey, I just updated from the edge and it looks like this _issue_ has resurfaced. Yesterday things were working (stories and specs). No code base changes, only rspec and rspec_on_rails After updating today I now need to set <config.txn...fixtures> to false in the spec_helper.rb to get the specs running, the stories are fine. Looks like the fixture loading is trying to start a txn. I

Sorry if asked before. I'm new to LLDB, try to use it according to the lldb project site. I write some very simple code like: #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { int counter = 0; while ( counter < 10 ) counter++; printf("counter: %d\n", counter); return 0; } and the session like: $ clang -g main.c $ lldb-3.4 a.out (lldb)

Torvald, For what are you interested in poolalloc? I'm asking because we are trying to decide how to prioritize work on it. Thanks, --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.org On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > Hi, > > I recently looked quite some time for why poolalloc wouldn't > transform calls > to malloc() in my program, until I

Hi, This is a proof of concept of GPU forwarding for Linux guest on Linux host. I'd like to get comments and suggestions from community before I put more time on it. To summarize what it is: 1. It's a solution to bring GPU acceleration for Linux vm guest on Linux host. It could works with different GPU although the current proof of concept only works with Intel GPU. 2. The basic idea